Art is the ability to convey that we are not alone," Shyamalan told the gathering of more than 800theater operators and suppliers at the convention's closing night dinner. "When I sit down next to you in a movie theater, we get to share each other's point of view. We become part of a collective soul. That's the magic in the movies."

*Sigh*. I guess that's just proof that even the writers/directors are as clueless as the movie executives. As Kip Esquire explains, it's just that 'collective soul' experience that most are hoping to avoid:

Whatever. If movie theater chains (which almost rival the airlines in their ability to repeatedly go bankrupt) want to get people back into their theaters, it's really quite simple:

--Stop pricing tickets on the elastic portion of the demand curve.

--Ditto for concessions.

--Have adult-only showings (not adult movies, but adult showings) for those of us who neither have nor like children.

--Bring back ushers to expel cell phone users who are "ringer-off challenged."

--Oh, and make some good movies for a change.

I would echo Esquire's sentiments. Hollywood has always left me baffled by its attempts to explain declining ticket sales by referencing the economy, or reduced consumer confidence, increased holiday travel, or whatever. The reasons aren't that complicated, and pointing to the steady stream of poor quality flicks coming out of Tinseltown doesn't quite capture why fewer and fewer are venturing out to theaters. Yes, in recent years movies have been jaw-numbingly bad. But as far back as I can remember, Hollywood has produced mostly bad movies (anyone remember 'Weekend at Bernies'). Besides, people are still watching movies - just not in theaters. Services like Netflix have proven remarkably popular, as have on-demand movies. And people still flock to Blockbuster and other neighborhood movie rental stores on a weekly basis.

The reasons people don't want to go to the movie theaters are simple enough: namely that ticket/concession prices continue to rise as the quality of the movie-going experience declines. No one wants to shell out $40 (movie and concessions for two) to sit in a filthy theater, watch an out of focus projection screen, and listen to cell phones and the prattling of the other movie-goers. In an effort to keep their profits high, theaters typically employ minimum wage level employees which mean surly or indifferent teenagers - bad employees who could not care any less about the patron's movie going experience. Is it any wonder that most would rather sit home with surround sound and a nice screen?

Hollywood can still make money. People will always pay for more crappy movies like Taxi or xXx: State of the Union. They would rather just watch them on their own terms.

October 30, 2005

Wal Mart's in trouble again. This time the company is trying to soften its hard-edged corporate image and to demonstrate its commitment to social responsibility by offering a more comprehensive health care plan to employees and supporting calls to raise the minimum wage standard.

Not so fast cry Wal-Mart's critics. Wal Mart's new health care plan still requires a $1,000 deductible; and their support of a higher minimum wage is just a transparent attempt to increase the buying power of their primary customers.

So what? The rising cost of health care has been well-documented and has been a central factor in the decline of company profits everywhere. And of course just about any move a company makes - like supporting an increase in their customer's buying power - is going to be inspired by self-interest. To be otherwise is to betray the investors. These latest criticisms just go to show what happens when the water gets muddied. Wal-Mart should just stick to what it does best: generating profits.

"We have recognized the state of Israel, and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. "This is unacceptable."

Any form of condemnation - even one as restrained as Erekat's - would have been unthinkable a few years ago and likely would not have happened if Arafat were still breathing. Sharon's recent moves, including his pullout from Gaza (and despite this week's setbacks), have indicated Israel's intention of moving toward a two-state solution, a solution that robs all but the most hardened anti-Semites of their anti-Israel furor.

On the other hand, Ahmadinejad's hateful call signals Iran's intent to sink further into theocratic isolation and diplomatic solitude. Those waiting for the Iranian students to propel Iran toward moderation and liberty are bound to be disappointed. The mullahs knew what they were doing when they picked Ahmadinejad, and the wait for progress is bound to be years, if not decades.

What is most disappointing in the Left's cynical response to the embryonic democracy in Iraq is the callous and flippant disregard for the Iraqi's obvious expression of hope and political will; and such cynicism should never inform our political hopes or an American agenda. A tragic history of violence and tyranny does not preclude a future of prosperity and freedom. A legacy of torture and oppression is not a genetic blueprint; it does not eclipse the hope for liberty and an open society - unless one believes that that hope belongs only to Americans.

Here's Charles Krauthammer expressing the same thought far more eloquently than I, and admonishing us to not embrace Scowcroft's version of cynical realism:

The difficulties there are indeed great. But those difficulties came about not because, as Scowcroft tells us, "some people don't really want to be free" and don't value freedom as we do. The insurgency in Iraq is not proof of an escape-from-freedom human nature that has little use for liberty and prefers other things. The insurgency is, on the contrary, evidence of a determined (Sunni) minority desperate to maintain not only its own freedom but its previous dominion over the other 80 percent of the population now struggling for theirs.

These others -- the overwhelming majority of Iraq's people -- have repeatedly given every indication of valuing their newfound freedom: voting in two elections at the risk of their lives, preparing for a third, writing and ratifying a constitution granting more freedoms than exist in any country in the entire Arab Middle East. "The secret is out," says Fouad Ajami. "There is something decent unfolding in Iraq. It's unfolding in the shadow of a terrible insurgency, but a society is finding its way to constitutional politics."

Ajami is no fool, no naif, no reckless idealist, as Scowcroft likes to caricature the neoconservatives he reviles. A renowned scholar on the Middle East, Ajami is a Shiite, fluent in Arabic, who has unsentimentally educated the world about the Arab predicament and Arab dream palaces. Yet having returned from two visits to Iraq this year, he sports none of Scowcroft's easy, ostentatious cynicism about human nature, and Iraqi human nature in particular. Instead, Ajami celebrates the coming of decency in a place where decency was outlawed 30 years ago.

It is not surprising that Scowcroft, who helped give indecency a 12-year life extension, should disdain decency's return. But we should not.

October 23, 2005

Senators are in an uproar over the increase in on the air foul language and are determined to curb the cuss words by imposing stiffer fines on the networks. But some evidence indicates that the use of such offensive and taboo words may be hard-wired into our behavior:

Yet researchers who study the evolution of language and the psychology of swearing say that they have no idea what mystic model of linguistic gentility the critics might have in mind. Cursing, they say, is a human universal. Every language, dialect or patois ever studied, whether living or dead, spoken by millions or by a single small tribe, turns out to have its share of forbidden speech, some variant on comedian George Carlin's famous list of the seven dirty words that are not supposed to be uttered on radio or television.

And so too may be the reaction to them:

Other investigators have examined the physiology of cursing, how our senses and reflexes react to the sound or sight of an obscene word. They have determined that hearing a curse elicits a literal rise out of people. When electrodermal wires are placed on people to study their skin conductance patterns and the subjects then hear a few obscenities spoken clearly and firmly, participants show signs of instant arousal. Their skin conductance patterns spike, the hairs on their arms rise, their pulse quickens, and their breathing becomes shallow.

Interestingly, said Kate Burridge, a professor of linguistics at Monash University in Australia, a similar reaction occurs among university students and others who pride themselves on being educated when they listen to bad grammar or slang expressions that they regard as irritating, illiterate or declasse.

"People can feel very passionate about language," she said, "as though it were a cherished artifact that must be protected at all cost against the depravities of barbarians and lexical aliens."

Whatever the case, our Senators surely have more with which to concern themselves than the four letter words that offend their sensibilities.